A -real- economic discussion about 2.0?

[indira]

in a way this is helping RMT now they can raise the price of gil lol. wont be long till people are getting rich again theres already a ton of supplys they can resell.

[Dragonheart]

If they were to do that, everyone would buy out the stuff that stacks and sells for the most right before the shutdown.

even if they do this, i suppose that this will drastical reduce the current amount of gil on servers.

[Chinook]

Good read.

Sadly you won't find many logical discussions around here ...

[Roaran]

The problem with most of these analysts is infinitely complex and beautifully simplistic.

People are greedy.

They are going to get whatever they can from whoever they can when they can. Reducing overall gil isn't going to stop that, especially at the start of 2.0. All this is going to do is create a top heavy economy, granted, we have that now, so essentially it's not going to change a thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

This link is more than sufficient to deal with your post.

If you want a -real- economic evaluation for FFXIV; I've already done it several times, and made my suggestions on many occasions.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...e-Economically

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-Market-Wards.

I have a feeling SE decided to gravitate towards the kind of system I'm suggesting, as the only other viable (although less advantageous) system would be to copy all other MMOs.

_________________________

The only real problem with FFXIV lies in it being a virtual economy. That is not to say virtual economies are all bad, but they are just different and require specific attention to these points.

In real life, people typically have the power to eventually improve the effeciency of their trade, though not always directly themselves. In FFXIV, we must rely on the developers to do so. The best way to fix this is to simply bring the effeciency of trade to a point that far exceeds those of real life - meaning, items are put up for sale with ease, items are purchased with ease; and the whole process is near instantaeneous.

Also @OP, if you want a real economic discussion about 2.0 - put this thread in the markets and retainer section of the forum and you can have a dialouge; the community reps still check those forums, and you don't have everyone and their mother giving their 2 cents on what they think economics is or should be.

[Vindrax]

The 1/10th Gil Reduction
Reducing the amount of gil everyone has by 1/10th will do nothing, IF the current gil inflows remain exactly the same. The chance of this happening are low. How this policy effects us will fully depend on how easy or hard it is to make gil in 2.0. If it is easier to make gil in 2.0 than it is now, the economy will benefit a lot, as new players will feasibly be able to catch up.


Consequences of Server Differences (Effect on Monetary Policy)
To me this is the biggest problem 2.0 faces. By having new servers, you create a scenario where some servers will have a massive money supply, in the 100s of millions, while others will have a money supply of zero. Both economies will on average grow at the exact same rate. So the older servers will always have a fixed difference in money supply.

Overall good read. I have a few counterpoints to these two that you've stated. The first being that SE has already stated that gold inflows will be 1/10th what they are now, so without any evidence to the contrary I don't think it's worth speculating that the rate is going to be anything but that. However, counter to what you wrote, unless the gil given by quests/leves is dramatically increased, gil received by questing will not be the main way of "catching up" for new players. The only real way players are going to catch up, is through obtaining raw type materials in the economy that are valuable and selling those to players with a large gil supply. Point being, if you do a leve now that rewards you 3,000 gil and takes you 10 minutes to do, versus farming 5-10 boar leathers in that same time, each which sell for 6,000 gold. Players have had so much time amassing gil through the convential means that the really only feasible way for a new player to break into the economy is through selling items, questing will make an extremely minor impact on the amount of gil these players will obtain.


The second point is also invalid, because over time the two economies over a long enough period of time, should reach an equilibrium. This is because in your example, the Wutai money supply is going to be having millions and millions sucked out of its economy by the AH tax, while on "Fairy" a paltry amount of gil in comparison will be taken out. Over time they should balance out and it's not really unfair since it's % based.

[Yves]

Anyway, If you have some counter-arguments or alternative ideas about the economy I would really love to hear them. Please try and keep it "scholarly" and use real arguments or models. And state your assumptions so they are clear [/COLOR]

Okay, first off, I love when people make educated posts for the purpose of open and progressive discussion. I sometimes do and sometimes don't.

Here's a factor that you left out: Malthus. I'm not being negatively critical - you raised entirely relevant points. But this actually pushes a variable into the situation that isn't accounted for. The game, as it stands now, is suffering from a reverse-Malthusian scenario. Supply has greatly outpaced demand meaning that gil accumulates simply because there is no need to spend it.

A vast majority of players are 50 across multiple jobs (since there was jack and shit to do for a 1+ years.) This means that most people are capable of creating items themselves. Because of this there is little reason to spend. Now, some players will buy the basemats but even that market has dwindled (again, nothing else to do so people fill time by being self-sufficient.)

In short, there isn't a need to spend gil so the economy stagnates while reserves of both tangible goods and gil continue to increase.

This means that, since a Malthusian shift occurs on one end of the spectrum, it must occur on the opposing end, too.

This wasn't worded eloquently but I need to poop and then head to class. If you respond you have my word that I will commit myself to the discussion clearly.

Also, this pretty much should zip right through the classic square of opposition if you wanted to test it.

[Elexia]

I just don't care anymore I don't see why people care I just see it freaking pointless to worry about... screw the economy I just want to play the freaking game... get over it people...

Well, you can't have a proper MMO without a stable economy, if the economy is screwed up it hurts gameplay because people will get annoyed by prices = people will have to grind more than they should have to = likely to lose players nowadays because they're used to handouts.

[Molly_Millions]

Somebody missed the part about current gear keeping it's balance in the gil post. Your triple and quad (quintuple?) melds will not lose their value. However, I hope folks bank on them doing so. I'll be so f'ing rich in 2.0.

• Changes to Gear Attributes

The attributes of various gear may be adjusted due to the extensive redesign of the battle system. Rest assured we will do our utmost to minimize the impact upon the effectiveness of any existing gear.

http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com...e956cb586363ab

[Elexia]

They also stated Materia melded gear won't be as effective in 2.0 as it is now since you needed those 2-5 melds to feel an impact, now not so much as base stat and allocation will take care of the scaling.

[Molly_Millions]

They also stated Materia melded gear won't be as effective in 2.0 as it is now since you needed those 2-5 melds to feel an impact, now not so much as base stat and allocation will take care of the scaling.

Ah, but they didn't specifically state melded gear, they said stats from gear, if I remember correctly, meaning stuff like dl and hdl gear could also be affected. If that's true, then is means the relative balance stays the same while the gear itself is not as effective. In that case, the part i quoted above and the post about adjusting gear are both true.

I wish I could find that post... does anyone have a link?